So Called Expert Witness and Expert Evidence in Malayan High Court Recently (I would like to remind all my readers, most of Malaysian government officers are childish-like and they not grown up completely. Whenever they tried to cheat other people, they behave like a child, they cheat like a child on the presumption that their victims are always stupid to believe them all)
‘Everyone following the Sodomy II case ‘knows’ that Anwar Ibrahim will be denied the clinical notes. It was a foregone conclusion.’
Semen can stay in rectum for 72 hours: Doc
Cheong Sai Fah: To someone not in the legal profession, denying Anwar Ibrahim access to the doctors’ notes seems grossly unfair and morally wrong, even if there is a legal technical reason to support the judge’s decision. How can any fair-minded person be persuaded that Anwar has been given a fair trial?
I do hope that the neutral Malay voters view this as unfair treatment and cast their votes accordingly. Then the politician who declared that he doesn’t need votes from the Indians and the Chinese may begin to sit up and take note.
Yobama: This case is just a ‘modern’ version of the classical intrigues that plagued the Malay ruling class in the ancient Malacca kingdom, dating back to Hang Tuah’s time. In the place of the hereditary sultans, we now have elected PMs and elected DPMs as the puppeteers. They call the tune, and the judges and AG’s Chambers just simply carry out their ‘duties’ in obedience to the master.
Now the whole world is following the unravelling of the plot, when during the Malacca sultanate days only people close to the istana knew the storyline.
Is this the height of ‘ketuanan’ Melayu governance where the incumbents wield their power by persecuting their political foes just to stay in power? Is this the execution of Najib Razak’s pledge to ‘defend Putrajaya with their crushed bodies’ and by selling all their souls?
Defending by hook or by crook? To me, it is more by crook.
Teh: Everyone following the Sodomy II case ‘knows’ that Anwar Ibrahim will be denied the clinical notes. It was a foregone conclusion. In Malaysia,
judicial decisions can be foretold by any man in the street in cases where Umno is involved.
Changeagent: I think 99.9% of all Malaysians have the same extraordinary powers to predict the outcome of this case. The other 0.1% of the population are either indifferent or in denial.
Lim Chong Leong: This is a persecution, not prosecution. How can the defence team even imagine if there are contradictions between the clinical reports, the medical reports and the doctor’s testimony if they are not allowed to see any of it? If they are all consistent, then fine, they won’t pursue that line of cross. That would actually save time.
But if there were contradictions and the witness is discredited, the court can then determine that the evidence is useless. What harm can there be to allow the defence access to the prosecution’s documents?
This is not a card game of bluff. This is our judicial and criminal process. And Umno is screwing it up just so they can stay in power to plunder us further.
Sarawakian: Justice has to be seen to be done. Our judiciary and our judges are becoming a laughing stock to the world. It’s time they salvage at least a little of their sullied reputation. Now even the doctors are in cahoots with corrupt politicians.
Allan Kong: Brother judge, who are you to judge that the reason for the release of the medical report is based on a hunch? Why can’t the report be revealed to show the truth? The very act of concealing the facts is tantamount to a criminal act.
Ranjit Singh: Anwar’s lawyers must be ready to face such a stupid decision and able to counter it. You can’t expect fairness and justice in an Umno court, but you can put the judge to shame when you anticipate what it is going to be. We can continue to run the system down, but if we cannot synergise to anticipate what is expected and prepare for it, it then it becomes about political manoeuvering that we are all so use to.
Look at Karpal Singh – didn’t he know the date of the hearing? Suddenly he needs to table a motion in Parliament that is of no use, as nothing will come out of it as has been the case from time immemorial. Sure, it is a kangaroo court, but didn’t we know that already?
“In today’s decision, High Court judge Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah ruled that the defence had failed to give reasons as to why the court should allow Anwar access to the medical notes.”
Can there be anyone more ignorant of the concept of innocent until proven guilty, until all avenues and options are provided to ensure a human’s liberty? The important transcendental factor is that clear principle and common law that aims to protect the accused based on reason and common sense, not procedures and man-made law to satisfy Umno and its cronies.
It is obviously the lack of impartiality and the human failings and the abandonment of any pretence of objectivity to that rights that are adjudicated upon by people who are biased that does a disservice to Malaysians.
CarL: If PM Najib Razak can be considered a murderer, and an elected MP can say this out loud in the Parliament, then why is it difficult to believe that the accused is guilty of what he is accused of?
Calling the PM a murderer in Parliament is something never heard off, and even if he is guilty, there is no need to behave like that. There are avenues, and as an elected representative, you must show a good example.
Anonymous: While Augustine Paul was famous for the words ‘irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant’, this judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah seems smarter with his ‘masuk bilik, masuk bilik, masuk bilik’
Omi: The ‘Third Force’ attacked PKR about its ‘unfair’ party elections, that PKR is a ‘pa-ma’ party, that Azmin Ali is bullying Zaid Ibrahim into a corner, and that Dr Syed Husin Ali is nyanyu.
How ironic that they choose to keep an elegant silence on this kangaroo court issue.
Ketegangan tercetus di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur apabila Peguam Cara Negara II, Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abidin bertikam lidah dengan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan beberapa individu di galeri awam.
Semuanya gara-gara peguam utama pembela, Karpal Singh yang gagal dalam usahanya cuba mengasak saksi hari ini, Dr Siew Sheue Feng supaya merujuk kepada nota perubatan asal.
“Saksi-saksi ini sudah diprogram sebagai robot,” bidas Karpal.
Anwar juga dilihat hilang sabarnya hari ini kerana telah berulang-kali dinafikan hak mendapatkan nota perubataan asal yang dibuat oleh doktor-doktor di Hospital Kuala Lumpur.
“Ini sudah melampau kerana awak semua (pendakwa) cuba menyaring semua bukti,” kata Anwar.
Yusof menjawab: “Kau tidak tahu mengenai undang-undang.”
Ia kemudian mencetuskan pertikaman lidah pula antara Yusof dengan beberapa individu di galeri awam.
Anggota polis yang berjumlah empat hingga lima orang, termasuk seorang yang berpangkat ASP kemudiannya dikerah bagi mengawal keadaan.
Sebelum itu, Karpal bertanya kepada Dr Siew berhubung apa yang diisi dalam borang perubatan.
Nama pesakit – saksi menjawab, “Mohd Saiful Bin Bukhari.”
No IC – Dr Siew berkata dia tidak ingat.
Tarikh lahir – sekali lagi doktor itu berkata dia tidak ingat.
Pekerjaan – “pembantu peribadi”
Status – “bujang”
Dr Siew juga berkata dia tidak ingat nombor laporan polis berkenaan.
Karpal kemudian meminta Dr Siew merujuk kepada laporan perubatan. “ Bukankah awak ingin menyegarkan semula ingatan awak berdasarkan nota itu?”
Saksi berkata dia hanya merujuk kepada maklumat dalam laporan perubatan terakhir dan bukan nota perubatan yang asal.
“Saya ada laporan yang lengkap,” katanya.
Pagi tadi, hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur, Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah sekali lagi menolak permohonan pihak peguambela bagi mendapatkan nota perubatan Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) dalam perbicaraan kes liwat yang membabitkan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Katanya, mahkamah tidak boleh memaksa dokumen itu dikemukakan.
Keputusan mahkamah agung
Sebelum itu berlaku pertikaman lidah antara peguam utama pihak pembelaan Karpal Singh yang berhujah bahawa hakim gagal memahami Seksyen 45, Akta Keterangan 1950 yang mensyaratkan seseorang pakar perlu mengemukakan semua dokumen bagi menyokong semua hujah yang dikemukakan di mahkamah.
“Ini keputusan Mahkamah Agung.”
Hakim Mohamad Zabidin berkata: “Bagaiaman jika dia (saksi) tidak mahu melihatnya (dokumen)?”
Karpal berkata ini tidak adil dan ini menyukarkan tugas pihak pembelaan dalam melaksanakan tugas mereka.
“Apa yang mungkin Yang Arif catatkan adalah tidak berguna kecuali ia disokong oleh data dan ia tidak berguna dengan tulisan di atas kertas itu.”
“Kenapa mesti Yang Arif duduk dan terdedah kepada tidak tentu arah?” soal Karpal.
Katanya, tindakan itu bagi membantu mahkamah mendapatkan gambaran dari sudut sains.
Justeru, menurut Karpal, adalah tidak adil kepada pihak peguambela jika data yang disertakan tidak menyokong kenyataan lisan dan bercanggah dengan sistem perundangan.
“Fungsi pakar (saksi) adalah mengemukakan kepada mahkamah setiap maklumat bagi menyokong keterangan dalam terma sains agar mahkamah tidak tersilap arah,” kata Karpal.
Bagaimanapun Peguam Cara Negara II, Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abidin mencelah mengatakan saksi layak menjawab secara lisan selain tiada desakan untuk saksi mengemukakan data.
Katanya tugas pakar patologi HKL, Dr Siew hanya untuk mengambil sampel dan mengenalpasti kecederaan dan bukan mengenalpasti data.
The So Called “The Well-Known Super-Sly-Malicious Deputy Public Prosecutor” and “The Malicious Judicial Commisioner” in Penang High Court recently.
|Judge’s quick decision angers lawyer|
|Thursday, 01 July 2010 11:34am|
|©The New Straits Times (Used by permission)
GEORGE TOWN: A lawyer representing a food outlet assistant on a drug trafficking charge lost his cool after the judge ordered his client to enter defence.
The drama transpired after High Court judicial commissioner Mohd Amin Firdaus Abdullah ordered Sharifurahim Abdullah, 30, to enter his defence for trafficking in 23kg of cannabis.
Sharifurahim’s lawyer, R.S.N. Rayer immediately expressed dissatisfaction after arguing that Amin had given the decision on the spot after hearing his and deputy public prosecutor Norina Zainol Abidin’s submissions.
Rayer argued that Amin had passed judgment instantaneously, without taking time to consider the submissions.
“I have been handling drug trafficking cases for a long time. I am shell-shocked with the court’s decision.
“If you want to proceed with the defence today, then I have no choice but to discharge myself,” Rayer said.
Amin said: “In that case, I will have to call the chief justice and complain to the Bar Council.”
Rayer then replied that Amin “can do as you please”, noting that he had to take instructions from his client.
Amin then fixed 9am today to hear the defence.
Sharifurahim was charged with trafficking in the cannabis behind a house in Kampung Permatang Rawa, Bukit Mertajam, at 9pm on March 31, 2006.
Earlier, Rayer submitted that the search list confirmed the defence contention that Sharifurahim was arrested in the house in Bukit Mertajam.
“The prosecution’s version that the drugs were recovered in an open space is not true.
“The raiding officer’s oral evidence contradicts the search list, which stated that the drugs were found in the house.”
Deputy public prosecutor Norina Zainol Abidin submitted that there was no contradiction, noting that if there was, it was a minor one.
Norina added that oral evidence carried more weight than the search list.
Amin, in ordering the accused to enter his defence, said the court found there was evidence that the accused had physical control of the drugs.